Hello Jeff,
> Shouldn't we use pg_usleep to ensure portability? it is defined for
> front-end code. But it returns void, so the error check will have to be
> changed.
Attached v3 with pg_usleep called instead.
> I didn't see the problem before the commit I originally indicated , so I
> don't think it has to be back-patched to before v10.
Hmmm.... you've got a point, although I'm not sure how it could work
without sleeping explicitely. Maybe the path was calling select with an
empty wait list plus timeout, and select is kind enough to just sleep on
an empty list, or some other miracle. ISTM clearer to explicitely sleep in
that case.
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers